pop quiz hotshot
Never being ones to shy from controversial issues--whether it's because of our argumentative natures or the voices we hear in our heads--we at Uncle Screwtape would like to post this quiz about religious pluralism.
Given these particular alternatives, which would you say is the best one when thinking about the status of other religions [than your own]. And why.... Answer carefully.
1. One one religion is true. All others are, at best, approximations.
2. Religions refer ultimately to the same truth although in different manners and approximations. Ultimately they are all equal.
3. All religions are false because of the falsity of their claim. There is no such ultimate reality.
4. Each religion is true because it is the best for its adherents. Truth is subjective.
5. Religions are products of history and thus both similar and different according to the historial factors that have shaped them.
6. Each religion has unique features and presents mutually incomensurable insights. Each statement of a basic experience is to be evaluated on its proper terrain and merits, because the very nature of truth is pluralistic.
Martin Marty, When Faiths Collide (Blackwell, 2005), 153-154.
posted by e at 7:04 PM
6 Comments:
1.
Because.
Oh. You wanted a careful answer. I'll get back with you on that.
1, Too.
Hey, I just wanted to comment on the ways these blogs inspire us. Your recent comments on Tolkien's TLOTR figured heavily in an article I just wrote for Paste Magazine, which you can find on my blog.
I hope all is well with you and yours in South Bend. Are you coming to Matt's and Q's wedding? I'd love to be there, but we'll be out of town. Maybe next time (for meeting you; not that I wish another wedding on either Matt or Q).
Ah you guys.... an easy answer without an explanation. How am I supposed to steal your ideas and use them for my own papers without citation if you don't write something more thorough?!?!
Andy, thanks very much for that comment. Brooke and I will most definitely be at the M & Q affair...we'll both actually be in the wedding. I must really like those two because they're making me put on a tux.
That's quite something that anything I thought about would make it into Paste. I enjoyed this last issue on Death Cab. And, as always, the sampler CD helps me feel like I know what I'm talking about in the musical world, which is probably both good and horrible since it is such a superficial knowledge. So, for what it's worth, keep up the good work!
Oh and John, my G4 finally crashed for the first time after a two year problem free-op career. What should I do? Diskwarrior? Buy a new computer (just kidding).
I am new to your Blogg, so forgive me if I am crashing a party. Your question brings up the foundation of how we view God and the role of religion.
The following is my feeble minds attempt to get around the concept of my God.
I am first a believer in Christ as saviour and believe his grace is beyond my comprehension. I also believe everytime I put God in a box and say he can only work this certain way, I observe the blessings of a group that obviously has the favor of God on there work.
I am thankful my job description is simply to try to meet others where they are in their journey with the same love Christ meets me. God's compassion and grace are beyond my understanding, I am not qualified to be the judge of anything. If theological comprehension and understanding of doctrines that often create divisions within and outside of religions is a requirement of salvation, then we are all in trouble. To me, religion is the description, as a best attempt of flawed limited humans to describe God's intervention into human history.
But as the great theologian Dennis Miller says, but I could be wrong.
Love the Blogg-Jayson from Fort wayne
Jayson--
Thanks so much for commenting. Good stuff.
Sounds like you'd be amenable to explanation 2? or maybe 4? What do you think?
Erik,
Long time no see. I trust that all is well in South Bend. I was perusing the links on Lukes blog and couldn't help but join in on this one.
No. 1. I don’t believe there is anyone who is a devoted follower of and fully understands the tenets of any given religion that could possibly answer this question any other way. Christianity and Judaism say there is no way anyone can atone for his or her sin on their own. The law as handed down to Moses required that blood be shed from a sacrificial lamb in order to gain that atonement.
While Jews still await the arrival of the Messiah to come and restore the kingdom of David and the law, Christianity alone says that the price was paid by Jesus, the Son of God, as the ultimate sacrificial lamb on the cross and that through his death and resurrection we are sanctified and have eternal life if we believe. This concept is a blasphemy to the Muslim who believes that Mohammed was the last and greatest of all the prophets and that Allah is the one true god. The idea of god having a son does not register with them at all. While Christianity is based on the faith that God has done the work, the Muslim must work his own way into eternity. This is also true of all other major world religions. The Hindu not only has to work through the sins of his lifetime, but must also deal with the sins of past lives in order to be reincarnated on a higher level. As a side note, I find it interesting that when people speak of their former lives they were almost always a prince, king, queen, or some other noble character. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of anyone who was a mass murderer or thief in a former life. Buddha was a disgruntled Hindu who did not believe in any of the 30,000 gods that the Hindu religion had to offer. I believe that he would be sorely disappointed in his followers today who have set him up as a god. He was atheistic at best and simply believed that he had reached the point of perfect nirvana and that his soul would never be reincarnated or have to continue wondering the earth. Granted, this a nutshell view and probably oversimplified for some, but I do hope my point is well taken.
Post a Comment
<< Home